Many of us bear the scars left by schoolyard bullies, and we applaud efforts to stop such destructive behavior before it harms more children.

But what about the adult bullies who have become a dark and disturbing feature of what now passes for public discourse in our polarized world?

Last week, Mozilla's CEO , Brendan Eich, was attacked for making a $1,000 donation in 2008 to California's Proposition 8, which effectively banned same-sex marriage in the Golden State. Some Mozilla employees have demanded that the CEO resign because his donation suggested he supported a discriminatory law and was not truly committed to a diverse workplace.

Thus far, no one has stepped forward to publicly challenge the employees' demands, which have been widely circulated by the media, though a handful of media sources acknowledged the CEO's right to donate to Prop 8, and anonymous online comments have supported him.

Since the furor erupted, Mozilla and Eich have vowed to redouble their efforts to reach out to the LGBT community, within the company and beyond.

So Eich isn't stepping down, but the controversy has stirred some questions and possible scenarios in my mind.

Many years have passed since Eich made that donation to Prop 8 and who knows whether he, like President Obama, has changed his mind on same-sex marriage? Should the president also resign from office? Maybe we should put Eich on trial, hire a top prosecutor, and find out what he really believes (cross-examination will be live streamed, and the digital audience can serve as a virtual jury).

And, down the road, what if Mozilla employees get a new CEO who wants to play the bulles' game, too. And maybe he decides he will force out anyone who donated/didn't donate to gun control groups, or Israel, or to the Romney presidential campaign? Or ...?

Unfortunately, the public bullying of Eich, is hardly an anomaly. Anyone can be a candidate.

Earlier this month, Brendon Ambrosino, a young professional dancer, writer,and a self-identified gay man, became a target of bullies. Ambrosino was recently hired by Ezra Klein, the former Washington Post blogger, who now runs Vox.com, and some bloggers challenged Klein's decision to give the young man a spot.

Ambrosino's crime? He raised questions about whether same-sex attraction and behavior is influenced by personal choice. Andrew Sullivan, an influential self-identified gay writer and blogger, has since argued that activists who attacked Ambrosino wanted to control the discussion and delegitimize members of the gay community who didin't follow the approved talking points.

And then there's another recent case of bullying: the Anscombe Society at Stanford University was under fire this month after LGBT student leaders discovered that a planned conference hosted by the Society dared to offer clear support for marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

The conference organizers lost their funding from the graduate student council, and were denied funding from the undergraduate student council. Then the university asked the Society to pay a $5,600 "security" fee to cover the cost of providing 10 campus security guards at the April 5 event. Free speech doesn't come cheap. Fox News' interview with the head of the Anscombe Society is here.

Ultimately, the deep-pocketed university announced it would pick up the tab for the security fee , and generous donors came forward to help cover the conference costs, but you get the idea.

We are allowing intimidation, not reasoned argument, to define what passes for public discourse.

No doubt, some of the present-day bullies were on the receiving end of playground bullying when they were still in elementary school. But they should know better than anyone that pushing people around won't win you friends or secure support for your position.

The next time someone gets bullied for their constitutionally protected beliefs, stand up for their rights and start a debate, not a war.

Again, ncregister blocked me from posting the source of this article, but it is a Catholic publication:
.The recent firing of Catholic school employees because they are gay is a sad and perplexing issue. The New York Times ran a long front-page story on the trend Thursday. There is a large measure of hypocrisy in this action by the church, and everybody knows it.
.
The catalyst for the firings is the gay employees’ marriage or intent to marry. Strangely enough, pastors had no problem hiring gay teachers, gay principals, gay athletic directors, gay janitors and other needed employees for decades. In many, many cases, the parents, students, pastors and priests knew the employees were gay but made no protest because they were performing services with competence and reliability.
.
This accommodation existed also for other church-related employees, such as organists, choir directors and liturgists. I suspect if all such church employees who happen to be gay suddenly disappeared, Sunday Mass in many churches in many dioceses would be a silent, bleak event.
.
Now that gays are marrying their longtime partners thanks to changes in federal and state laws, they are facing dismissal from their jobs. The alleged reason for dismissal is the fact that they are not following the church teaching on homosexuality. The real reason is that the word is out; the public knows they are gay—and the church is embarrassed.
.
But the affected employees weren’t following church teaching on this issue before, and somehow pastors and bishops were able to live with this less-than-perfect situation. Now, they feel, it’s time to impose a strict interpretation of the law. That’s where the hypocrisy, the double standard, is so obvious. Secrecy has been the chronic disease of Catholicism for a long time.
.
Pope Francis has said we are a church of sinners—all of us, including him. Somehow the teaching church—that is, pope and bishops—are going to have to accept the hard truth in that statement and cease imposing frayed, outworn laws that the greater body of the church no longer accepts.

Posted by Linda on Friday, Apr, 11, 2014 8:48 AM (EST):

Not sure what your comment means, Steve. Please clarify.

Posted by SteveP on Thursday, Apr, 10, 2014 8:20 PM (EST):

Linda: the change has already started. Why else do you think the Chief Executive announce “myRA”? Did you really think other people were going give you an income because you love someone?

Posted by Starzec on Thursday, Apr, 10, 2014 2:55 PM (EST):

So let me get this straight… Catholics are lecturing others on the dangers of bullying? Does anyone here know or understand Catholic history? If you did, you would quickly recognize that the Catholic Church has been the world’s bully for centuries. But now that they are no longer the majority, they cry foul.
The sooner the Catholics recognize that a) Not all Christians are Catholic and b) not all people are Christian, the world will be a much better place.
Catholics, What are you worried about? That you’ll be banished from Eternal life and sent elsewhere? Personally, I would rather be standing tall before God explaining to Him why I didn’t follow all of the Catholic teachings (because I choose to help rather than hinder my fellow man) than to try explaining the horrible bullying exhibited here by the so-called good Catholics? You’re only excuse will be that you’re a Catholic. He will ask you about being a human. What will your answer be?

Posted by Linda on Thursday, Apr, 10, 2014 12:59 PM (EST):

Well, I look forward to seeing your court case in the news. Meanwhile the taxes you pay are being used as the government sees fit.

Posted by SteveP on Thursday, Apr, 10, 2014 11:43 AM (EST):

Linda: your question is not pertinent. E. Windsor decided she did not want to pay estate tax and won her claim. There is precedent. Further, state and federal benefits of marriage clearly stem from the Christian (Jewish) mandate to care for widows and orphans. As you likely desire a secular state, there is no good non-religious argument for me to provide monetary support to anyone to whom I’m not related. Pitching in for common services is another thing altogether.

Posted by Linda on Thursday, Apr, 10, 2014 11:12 AM (EST):

Do you pay taxes at all, Steve?

Posted by SteveP on Wednesday, Apr, 9, 2014 9:21 PM (EST):

Linda: you might be familiar with the phrase “no taxation without representation.” And you may not have heard me correctly: I will not have a tax levied against my income, my work, to be used for another man because his “husband” passed away—both of whom who had equal opportunity to build his own retirement. That is plain thievery. Therein is the harm of “same-sex marriage”: it is thievery stemming from coveting.

Posted by Linda on Wednesday, Apr, 9, 2014 4:55 PM (EST):

Does anyone here think that maybe the availability of Viagra encourages homosexuality among men?

Posted by Linda on Wednesday, Apr, 9, 2014 12:44 PM (EST):

SteveP—you may have a say, but you don’t have the final decision. I don’t want my taxes to pay for war, and I can vote against it, but majority, (or the biggest mouths) generally gets their way.
.
And your tax dollars are being spent on contraception and abortion as well—not just Planned Parenthood, but any non-profit hospital in the country.

Posted by Linda on Wednesday, Apr, 9, 2014 12:41 PM (EST):

You did NOT answer my question—you avoided it completely with the side issue of business catering to homosexuals, not same-sex marriage itself.
.
I agree that you are defeated and withdrawn from the discussion.

Posted by Patty Bennett on Wednesday, Apr, 9, 2014 11:44 AM (EST):

Linda,
Secular harm? Yes, read my above comments about the self-destructive behaviors, and pay attention this time.
To further explain this to someone who is not willing to understand is not a productive use of time.
Let’s discontinue this conversation and do something useful. I’ll pray for you and call it a day. God Bless You.

Posted by Linda on Wednesday, Apr, 9, 2014 11:16 AM (EST):

Patty—that’s not what I asked. It’s up to the courts whether business can refuse services to homosexuals.
.
I asked what harm same-sex marriage could do, whether or not what the court rules about doing business.
.
You have the right to be disgusted with homosexuals, but you can’t force everyone else to be. Other than your personal disgust and your religion, can you think of any secular harm because of SSM?

Posted by SteveP on Wednesday, Apr, 9, 2014 9:49 AM (EST):

Linda: I will no more pay for Social Security Survivor benefits to a man whose “husband” has passed on as I will pay for an abortion or some female’s contraception.
.
Call yourself whatever you want – I have no say in that. I do, however, have a say in how my taxes and mandatory deductions are spent.

Posted by Patty Bennett on Wednesday, Apr, 9, 2014 9:45 AM (EST):

Linda,
YOU don’t have a problem with that, because you agree with the notion of counterfeit marriage. Thus, being coerced to cooperate with it wouldn’t violate your conscience. It is precisely when people are coerced to cooperate in activities that are AGAINST their conscience that protection of religious freedom is needed. You obviously haven’t been paying attention.

Posted by Linda on Wednesday, Apr, 9, 2014 9:29 AM (EST):

Patty—these cases are being brought to court for the very purpose of being tested. We have no problem over that. I’m just asking, if same sex couples could marry—even if it’s declared they cannot force a baker or florist to cater to their wedding, what harm will it do to society? Just what are you afraid of if same-sex marriage becomes legal?

Posted by Patty Bennett on Wednesday, Apr, 9, 2014 3:15 AM (EST):

Linda,
Since you asked:
You can buy a cake anywhere, but a same-sex couple purposely picks a baker who doesn’t want to condone the notion of same-sex “marriage”. The purpose is to have a test case and set a precedent that the baker is NOT ALLOWED to disapprove of counterfeit marriage. Ditto for the florist; ditto for the photographer, etc.
A woman cuts herself with razors (she admitted it after police find inconsistencies in her story) carving slurs against lesbians into her own flesh. She promptly falsely accuses some neighborhood men of “hate crimes”.
In “Lawrence vs. Texas” sodomy laws were overturned because of a false pretense. Two men called the police on THEMSELVES precisely so that they could cry foul (and file a lawsuit) when they were “caught in the act”. Test case. Precedent set. What about the rights of the officers not to be used as props in somebody’s “test-case”? What about the rights of the taxpayers who foot the bill for false reports? What about the people who have a REAL emergency, but the police are too busy with false reports?
A preacher reads from the book of Romans in the Bible and is arrested for “hate speech”.
When I worked in the hospital, the emergency room physician had quite a few horror stories of, to put it delicately, surgically removing foreign objects from a part of the anatomy where they would not be expected to naturally occur. The activities which caused this were NOT normal and healthy, and did severe harm to the patients. It is evidence of a disorder when so many of these patients are prone to self-destructive behaviors. When the doctor told the patients FOR THEIR OWN GOOD to avoid that activity in the future, the DOCTOR was accused of “hate speech”.
Here is a new trend and pattern of behavior with same-sex couples: 1. Join a Catholic parish. 2. Announce in no uncertain terms that you neither believe in, nor intend to live by what the Catholic Church teaches, that you have NO INTENTION of being in communion with the Catholic Church. 3. Demand Holy Communion. Just DARE anyone to say “No”.
4. Wail loudly that you’re being discriminated against, and hated, and rejected! Wail loudly some more! Attract as much attention as you can. Call the media! If you can do this at a funeral, you will be guaranteed much more pity. If the media frenzy begins to die down, file a lawsuit, and with tears in your eyes, tell the reporters that all you REALLY wanted is respect, and of course, privacy.
None of these behaviors are honest, none are in accord with nature or reality, and all of them are self-destructive.
The people that do these things are very bitter and immature. They need love and understanding, but their dishonest, immature, vindictive actions make them difficult to love. We must try, because they, too were made in God’s image. They must have been deeply hurt at some time. Jesus had the best, and most difficult advice: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” That’s the only way to stop this cycle of misery.
I don’t know you, but I will pray for you. Please pray for me too.

Posted by Linda on Tuesday, Apr, 8, 2014 11:42 AM (EST):

Patty—who is making you celebrate? It’s your choice what you want to celebrate, and I don’t see how same sex marriage being legal takes that choice away from you.

Posted by Patty Bennett on Monday, Apr, 7, 2014 11:35 PM (EST):

Mortal sin isn’t a civil right. The current problem is that the PC police demand that everyone celebrate sin.
Idols aren’t content to be left alone; they demand worship. In ancient Rome, Christians were put into the position where they were commanded to offer incense to false gods. Now, in what is left of our crumbling civilization, we are required to pay homage to sodomy, or the bullies of the gay agenda will conspire to make our lives miserable. We must obey God rather than men.
Bullies are filled with vindictive resentment. Wounded from past hurts, they don’t want justice; they want revenge, lashing out against those who they THINK caused their pain. Revenge will not heal their wounds; only genuine love and forgiveness will heal; sin just causes further destruction.

Posted by Linda on Monday, Apr, 7, 2014 9:01 AM (EST):

If the situation was reversed, and the CEO made a massive donation to an LGBT organization or Planned Parenthood, would you have written about the Catholic agenda to bannish civil rights
.
I bet you’d be celebrating!
.
That’s why I call you a hypocrite.

Posted by Jay on Sunday, Apr, 6, 2014 7:48 PM (EST):

The Marriage Counterfeit terrorizers have eliminated the actual history of the whole movement to de-criminalize homosexuality, which depended on the declaration, not that homosexuality was inborn, but that it was a CHOICE, and that their PREFERENCE for their own gender in erotic relations could not be fairly denied. A wholly unscientific premise was introduced in the ‘90s because the activists were in the minority, and suddenly, the absurd notion that they were “born that way” took off and has been the clarion call since. They need to be called out on this complete turn-around which was dictated solely by a need for more effective political propaganda.

Posted by GregB on Sunday, Apr, 6, 2014 12:58 PM (EST):

@Tom in AZ:
*
I’ve come to the conclusion that a large percentage of troll postings are written selfies. The credo of Homo Trollicus appears to be “I comment, therefore I AM.”

Posted by Linda on Saturday, Apr, 5, 2014 1:45 PM (EST):

Well, Joan—speaking of bullies, Tom of AZ must have the last word so it’s impossible to have a discourse with you while he continues to insult me—to which I react negatively and, yes, irrationally. That’s what bullies do when they can’t punch you in the face. Bye.

Posted by chris awo on Saturday, Apr, 5, 2014 10:14 AM (EST):

And the Bullies get bolder
.
http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/3160/Vatican-Says-Univ-of-San-Diego-Drag-Show-Caused-Scandal-New-Show-Planned-Next-Week.aspx
.
“who am I to judge?”

@Linda: What real topic? I’m pretty sure I’ve said quite a few, fairly substantive, things about your fact-free name-calling, which is the only thing YOU’VE contributed to this discussion. If my playing whack-a-troll with you is “a waste of cyberspace”, then how much more is the contentless trolling it’s in response to?
-
We keep on coming back to the fact that you are the one most guilty of everything you accuse other people of. (Well, that, and your veritably awe-inspiring demonstrations what a shallow posturing pseudo-intellectual you are. E.g., I didn’t only “harp on a typo”, firstly because your childish misspelling was obviously not a typo—that means an error in the physical process of hitting the keys, not ignorance of the word’s real spelling—but secondly and more importantly, because I then asked you to point out one non-sequitur I have committed. This you did not do, because you can’t engage on any substantive level whatsoever.)

Posted by Linda on Friday, Apr, 4, 2014 4:37 PM (EST):

“....
where is the line in all these when it comes to liberty in choosing of who we want to affiliate ourselves with? Same liberty that grant you the freedom to condone the life style must be granted back as well to those who abhor…”
.
The line should be somewhere before some one’s human and constitutional rights are violated! You may abhor, but you have no right to tell me to abstain from sex because you abhor it.
.
Tom, as usual, you are harping on typos and mistakes instead of addressing the real topic. You’re a waste of cyberspace.

Posted by Rey on Friday, Apr, 4, 2014 4:13 PM (EST):

Ms. Linda. It doesn’t matter what others think in regard to being secular. And just to clarify things a bit in my end, I’m neither in area of discourse when it comes to human values of perpetuated arrogance. I think humanity can do without it and for once I think we need to learn to enjoy the silence and listen to nature with our pineal gland. ;) That’s where the consciousness lives in you that deter whether GOD is still pumping the electricity in your heart that is keeping your brain alive or something else. “Discourse”, what does that mean in a Christian community? Should I be angry with my brother/sister for no reason? Chillax. :)

Posted by Tom in AZ on Friday, Apr, 4, 2014 3:54 PM (EST):

@Linda: “Non sequenteur”? Could you be more of a pseudointellectual? It’s “non sequitur”. Were you trying for the plural (“non sequuntur”) to go with “comments”? (That’s a joke—we both know you don’t know how to conjugate a Latin verb, even misspelled.) And please, give an example of how ONE of my comments is a non sequitur. To do that, you’d have to be able to state my premise, my conclusions, and the way in which my conclusions “do not (non) follow (sequitur)”. But come now, we both know you know no more of logic than a barnacle; your name-dropping of technical terms, without reference to their actual MEANING, fools nobody.
-
And given secular people coddle rapists and laud pornographers while accusing other people (not radical Islam, though) of wanting to repress women, claim all opposition is due to racism while consigning millions of blacks to permanent-underclass status or death in the womb (blacks make up nearly three times the proportion of abortions that they do of the population), and preach environmentalism while attending international conferences in private jets—they no more get to call anyone “hypocrites” than you, you millimeter deep puddle of a slogan-shrieking nonentity, get to call anyone “shallow”.

Posted by Rey on Friday, Apr, 4, 2014 3:46 PM (EST):

I’ll cry Foul as well! We all have heard about a woman scorn but where is the line in all these when it comes to liberty in choosing of who we want to affiliate ourselves with? Same liberty that grant you the freedom to condone the life style must be granted back as well to those who abhor. Stop it already, these people are giving jihad a bad name for sure with all this vindictiveness. I don’t want to sound religiously dramatic, but GOD will have his vengeance SOON!

Posted by jeff yorde on Friday, Apr, 4, 2014 1:46 PM (EST):

May God bless you . Joan !! - Jeff

Posted by Linda on Friday, Apr, 4, 2014 8:42 AM (EST):

And just why should I go through the bother at the demand of a jerk? You’ll just have the same non-sequenteur comments.
.
To return—look over the blog and figure out why secular people think you’re all hypocrites and shallow.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Thursday, Apr, 3, 2014 10:17 PM (EST):

...And then I go and double-check the name of the braindead troll who expressed surprised that Mark Shea was not a right-winger, and, lo and behold, “Linda”. I do apologize; I had no idea your cognitive impairments were so extensive.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Thursday, Apr, 3, 2014 10:15 PM (EST):

@Linda: I didn’t ask you to cite references, Miss Remedial Literacy 2014. I asked you to give a detailed in-depth description of your position (other than “with your head shoved where the sun don’t shine”, I mean). Those of us who do not struggle with basic language skills know that those are two different things. I guess I hurt your little feelings when I called attention to your difficulties with functional literacy? Since you’re still holding a grudge, what, two weeks later?
-
For the rest, the only things your repeated glib, fact-free assertions demonstrate is that you have no basis for your position and no right to your opinion. Your remarks have no real content beyond “Conservatives Bad!” (That you think all orthodox Catholics are conservative—which they most certainly are not, Mark Shea on this very site might like a word—is something that must be inferred from your remarks, since that is among the aspects of your position for which you do not make a case, probably more from inability than negligence.)

Posted by Linda on Thursday, Apr, 3, 2014 6:46 PM (EST):

I really don’t NEED a reference; The shallowness and hypocrisy of conservative Catholics is common knowledge, like “blue and yellow make green” or “February has 28 days except in leap year”. Do you think I need to cite sources for those two remarks?

Posted by Tom in AZ on Thursday, Apr, 3, 2014 6:14 PM (EST):

@Linda: Whereas you give such detailed, in-depth descriptions of your position. If you’re going to call other people shallow, you probably shouldn’t have been giving nothing but one- or two-sentence drive-by comments.

Posted by charles on Thursday, Apr, 3, 2014 3:24 PM (EST):

Does the LGBT Community actually believe that they can change God’s mind about the sin of homosexuality? In other words are they going to try to get Him to admit that He has been wrong all these thousands of years? Do they actually think that? {lol}
Sorry, it is not happening. Not now and not ever.

Posted by Joan Desmond on Thursday, Apr, 3, 2014 1:29 PM (EST):

Linda,
I would be interested to read your critique of my post. That’s the point of blogs, right? But thus far you’ve limited yourself to name-calling. Real public discourse is about an exchange of ideas. Let’s hear yours.
In peace, Joan

Posted by Linda on Thursday, Apr, 3, 2014 1:10 PM (EST):

The comments also demonstrate how shallow Catholic conservatives can be.

Posted by Howard on Thursday, Apr, 3, 2014 7:43 AM (EST):

“Should the president also resign from office?” Oh please yes!

Posted by chris awo on Thursday, Apr, 3, 2014 5:44 AM (EST):

A major problem we face is that the catechism of the Catholic Church is unclear in some areas. For example:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) #2357 states: ‘Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures.* “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.”* Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.’
.
this is a problematic section. What does this sentence mean? “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”.
Really what does this statement mean? Is it asserting that homosexuality has biologic origins? Is it speculating about its psychological origins? Is it implying that God makes some people to specifically have homosexual temptations? Is it opening a door to the possibility of scientific advancement in future, that may show that people with homosexual temptations are created that way, and therefore the temptations might not be temptations after all? Is it speculating that if the psychological origins of homosexual temptations are adequately explained, then homosexual feelings, relationships and acts may become legitimate?
.
With sentences like - “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained” - within the Catechism itself; is there any wonder that the bullies are being emboldened every day.
Read more:http://popeleo13.com/pope/

Posted by chris awo on Thursday, Apr, 3, 2014 5:29 AM (EST):

“And if an one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. 15 Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorah than for that town.” Matthew 10 v 15

Posted by chris awo on Thursday, Apr, 3, 2014 5:09 AM (EST):

Homosexual acts and condoning of homosexual acts is the Devil’s plan. It is the mark of the Beast.
If the “LGBT” crowd refuse to listen, this is what the Lord Jesus says:
“And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town…”

Posted by chris awo on Thursday, Apr, 3, 2014 5:00 AM (EST):

No Catholic or Christian should allow himself or herself to be bullied by the ‘Gay Agenda’. Stand your ground.

Posted by Linda on Wednesday, Apr, 2, 2014 6:54 PM (EST):

Rich—if you can’t figure it out, you aren’t paying attention. Read the article again an think about it.

Posted by Rich in MN on Wednesday, Apr, 2, 2014 3:03 PM (EST):

(Okay, I’ll bite….)

Linda, what do you mean?

Posted by Linda on Wednesday, Apr, 2, 2014 12:37 PM (EST):

JOAN—you are such a hypocrite!

Posted by Mia Archer on Tuesday, Apr, 1, 2014 1:45 PM (EST):

We have bullies because we have a world filled with sin.Human life starts with original sin and continues as long as we prefer it. Those who object need to refuse to take part. I have been pursued by bullies all of my life. NEVER has anyone spoken up to say “This is WRONG”..they all merely backed off, thus becoming part of it. Sin is just so much FUN !!

Posted by Donald Link on Tuesday, Apr, 1, 2014 11:23 AM (EST):

A term from Psych 101 is “Justification”. The LBGT community knows that actions they engage in are disfunctional and thus deparately seek to be regarded as “normal”. They even got the American Psychiatric Assn to drop homonsexual orientation from its list of disorders, though it plainly is as the biology demonstrates. This separation from reality also manifests in other disfuntional ways and can have a serious negative affect in other interpersonal dealings. One longs for the old days of Oscar Wilde and Tennesse Williams when imorality was recognized for what is was and dealt with realisticaly.

Posted by mrscracker on Tuesday, Apr, 1, 2014 11:04 AM (EST):

Rich in MN,
It reminds me too of the story of the Emperor With No Clothes.What is obvious must no longer be acknowledged, whether it’s life beginning at conception,what constitutes marriage, or gender.

Posted by Br. Robert Anthony on Tuesday, Apr, 1, 2014 10:58 AM (EST):

A well written post on a most timely subject! Well done, and thank you!

Posted by Rich in MN on Tuesday, Apr, 1, 2014 8:24 AM (EST):

The late Fr William B Smith was famous for his wry, off the cuff remarks. Probably 20 or so years ago, he made the remark, “Scratch a liberal and you’ll uncover a fascist.” When I read of what is happening in our country and our world today, I am reminded of reading that, in Germany in the 1920s, the Nazis used to go to the speeches of their political opponents and bang on loud drums to prevent them from being heard. The Nazis were not interested in debate; they were interested only in complete domination.

About a year or 2 ago, in one of the comboxes (I think it was to an NC Register article), a gay marriage supporter (or troll) replied to a worried commenter: “Are you scared? You should be.”

I think if Judge Kennedy is looking for animus, he should check his rear-view mirror.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Joan Frawley Desmond, is the Register’s senior editor. She is an award-winning journalist widely published in Catholic, ecumenical and secular media. A graduate of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies of Marriage and Family, she lives with her family in California..